Greentarget

Joe Eichner

by

Just because a senior executive has something to say doesn’t mean a news outlet will run it. Depending on the content and intended audience, an external publication might not even be the best medium for the message.

In fact, publishing directly through owned channels like LinkedIn’s new newsletter function or a company website might be better for reaching particular targets and achieving an organization’s specific goals – especially if the work is part of a broader, owned executive communications platform.

Here’s an example: a professional services firm wants to spotlight a new internal initiative – say, a flexible work-from-home policy. A mention in a trade publication’s roundup story isn’t enough to affect employee perception of the new policy or use it as a recruiting tool. Maybe the CEO could write an op-ed on it?

That’s one option, but there are some questions to ask before moving forward:

  • Is your company reputable enough in this area to merit attention from your ideal outlet?
  • Is your work-from-home policy truly unique?
  • Can your CEO extrapolate a unique POV or actionable guidance for others from the policy?
  • Do the benefits of filtering the message in a way even a small trade publication might require outweigh the benefits of speaking specifically, personally, and directly to those you want to reach, i.e. new and existing talent?

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. But as executives face mounting pressure to speak up on a range of issues – and with trust in business now greater than trust in government and media –  how and where they develop their communications has taken on greater importance. An owned channel, be it a company blog, email or alert, or LinkedIn newsletter, may be the most effective (if not the only) path forward.

Why should executives consider owned channels? 

Over the past two years the public has increasingly looked to executives to speak out on topics from social justice to COVID-19 to climate change. An individual leader’s beliefs and values – once seen as largely irrelevant in the professional realm – now factor into how people decide what brands to buy and advocate for, where they choose to work, and which companies they invest in.

At the same time, people’s trust in media and government has declined at an alarming rate. While earned media placements still confer genuine credibility for most professional services executives, they shouldn’t ignore the growing trust people – especially their own employees – are placing in companies and business leaders. In fact, communications received directly from one’s employer are viewed as more believable and trustworthy than those from government and media reports.

Depending on the topic and audience, owned channels can also deliver high-quality engagement. As my colleague recently wrote, they can give executives a straight line to certain audiences and even help lead to earned media opportunities. And while your own channel might not be The New York Times, well-executed owned content can yield powerful metrics: the top posts shared by C-level executives on LinkedIn generated over 33,000 views of their profile, over 2,000 new connections, and 16,000 views on the company’s job page.

When should executives consider owned media?

Deciding which medium is right for your message depends on your target audience, topic and point of view.

For instance, nine times out of 10 it will be easier to place an article with a unique point of view and/or useful guidance about a new regulation or litigation trend than to place the example we started this piece with: an executive discussing a company’s new work-from-home policy.

But if the topic is more personal and/or promotional, and the primary audience is new and prospective employees, an owned channel can be a great option. Some cases where it might be useful to consider this route:

  • Establishing a new leader’s voice and authority. A leadership change is a natural time to want to showcase an executive’s personality, values and vision for the future of their company. In this case, a feature story, Q&A, or byline in a leading industry trade can be a real win – but it’s not the only option. An owned executive communications strategy could allow executives to speak more authentically, clearly and directly, while creating a consistent channel to share their thoughts and highlight those of others.
  • Connecting with existing and prospective talent. Amid the Great Resignation, it’s increasingly important that executives find ways to become a destination for their industry’s top talent. In an age where work is personal, executives’ communications can and should be, too. Sharing stories that compellingly showcase your firm’s culture, community investment, benefits programs and values may not be worthy of an op-ed in an outside publication, but it will show up when prospective employees search your website and LinkedIn page.
  • Commenting on social issues and demonstrating community engagement. Executives looking to get out there on big topics of the day can use blogs and other owned platforms to speak out and demonstrate how firms are taking action in their communities and within their own organizations. Owned channels allow executives to control their messaging around sensitive topics and highlight initiatives (e.g., a charitable giving or pro bono effort) that might not otherwise get media attention.
  • Demonstrating leadership skills. Many executives write on leadership and management topics in business and industry publications. But not all leaders have the credentials, time, or perspectives that would enable them to do so successfully. An owned channel can help executives articulate what makes a good leader and demonstrate to their stakeholders that they’re up to date on current trends. If done well, such content can could even serve as the foundation for future earned media opportunities.

What makes for good executive communications on owned channels?

At Greentarget, we talk a lot about establishing positions of authority and finding a unique  point of view. While those aspects certainly apply to executive communications, owned platforms allow for other elements to shine through: personality, authenticity, humanity, and honesty (not to mention they can also be more genuinely self-promotional).

Richard Branson comes to mind here for a reason. One look at his blog and you feel it immediately captures his fun, adventurous, encouraging, philanthropic spirit. His personality suffuses the words and images on the site, and, of course, the broader Virgin brand.  

While not everyone can be a Richard Branson, each leader has a singular life story on which to draw. In 2020, for instance, Guru Gowrappan, then CEO at Yahoo/Verizon Media, wrote about his experiences voting for the first time in U.S. elections as a way into discussing the importance of factual and trusted information – and to highlight how the company’s content provides that for people. Sometimes, an owned platform empowers leaders to shine the light on others, too. Mark Baer, CEO at Crowe, used a post about the firm’s Crowe Gives Back campaign to spotlight the specific charitable and volunteer activities of employees throughout the firm.

Ideally, the best owned executive communications combine these elements with those of good authority positioning to offer personable content that demonstrates a unique and useful point of view. Scan LinkedIn’s Top Voices for Management & Culture, and you’ll find the list filled with (seemingly) counterintuitive headlines that go on to provide useful guidance, including the co-founder of software developer Aha! talking about why he “will never hire another salesperson” and corporate strategist Molly Moseley using Tesla’s lateness policy (“How to get fired in 9 minutes” reads the headline) as an entrée into guidance on how HR teams can build loyalty among employees.

Want to learn more about developing an owned executive communications platform to support goals and values? Let’s talk.   

by

When we put out our second annual Fake News survey late last year, the challenges were clear: an overwhelming 93% of journalists believe fake news has a negative impact on their profession.

Less clear, however, was what exactly should be done about it. Our respondents, comprised of over 100 journalists, said – perhaps a bit predictably – that journalism was the answer. Yet their optimism was not exactly overwhelming. Only 14% said their efforts had a significant impact on lessening the spread of fake news.

They’re not the only ones who are skeptical. When former White House correspondent and political reporter Marc Ambinder wrote about our survey for MSNBC, he expressed disbelief that fake news could be fixed by more journalism. With democracy in retreat, he wrote, more media will just lead to more “anti-media” attacks. He suggests instead that, “What is needed is more relentless, sophisticated and unyielding pressure on the superspreaders of misinformation.”

While how and who might apply that pressure remains to be seen, Ambinder’s thinking does at least present another solution to the problem. Nieman Lab’s Predictions for Journalism 2022 series, which we’ll dig into below, offers more. As we’ll see, media institutions, editors, and journalists aren’t the only ones who need to play a role. In a world where CEOs are increasingly more trusted than media and government, business and expert authorities can (and should) contribute as well.

Insights from Nieman Lab

Each year, Nieman Lab “asks some of the smartest people in journalism and media what they think is coming in the next 12 months.” This time around, many (unsurprisingly) addressed fake news. Though each piece in the series is worth a read, we’ve gathered a few key insights.

Diagnosing the Root Cause  

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

For instance, Izabella Kaminska, outgoing editor of the Financial Times’ Alphaville blog, writes that mistrust in media stems largely from “structural, economic, and bureaucratic forces that have come to underestimate editorial risks and misallocate resources in a bid to maximize returns from reach, digitalization, and standardization.” These forces, she goes on, favor “predictable clicks drawn from knee-jerk, and often erroneous, takes that ride the consensus wave, while sensationalizing content and narrowing the public debate spectrum.”

This is in part what happens when news tries to keep up with the shift to online – from the pre-digital notion that information is finite, to the infinite nature of today’s news. As Shalabh Upadhyay, founder of NEWJ in India, puts it:

…why rely on a journalist if your peers have the same access to the same information from the same source? News organizations are increasingly moving from being a primary source of information to being a source of validation of already-consumed news. With the presence of multiple media players, one of them is bound to validate your version of the consumed information, making the rest of the organizations seem misguided. Hence the emergence of the post-news world and the general erosion of trust in journalism and journalists across the globe.

Finding Solutions

To combat these problems, Nieman Lab contributors offer several solutions:

  • A collaborative and open model of journalism – powered by technology and focused on credibility

“In a world of information overload, credible information – or credibility itself – is the opportunity gap for journalism to rally around to create a sustainable value proposition,” Upadhyay writes.

But given the subjective nature of credibility, especially amid rampant polarization, the process by which journalism achieves it must change.

One of the ideas Upadhyay suggests is “transparent processes that provide the general public with the means of validating their work.” Technology and collaboration can help here. Raney Aronson-Rath, executive producer of Frontline, cites Nobel Peace Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa’s efforts on this front in the Philippines, including a “fact-checking consortium among news groups to try to help identify online disinformation in near real-time” that also works with “civic engagement, legal, and academic partners.”

Rath also cites the Pandora Papers as evidence of technology’s ability to enable “hundreds of reporters around the world to join forces in secure ways, and to tell a global accountability story with implications that continue to reverberate.”

  • More curation, less noise

Another commonly articulated solution: Focus on quality and curation – not just clicks. Simon Allison, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Continent, Africa’s most widely distributed newspaper, says that in the context of a universal “information-rich environment … journalism now functions to condense, contextualize, and curate the sheer volume of information that is out there and accessible to all – to stand between readers and the abyss of the infodemic.”

The news product that does this the best, he says, is the old-fashioned newspaper, which is tightly edited and carefully ordered. The worst is the news website, which offers a “dizzying array of stories” and contributes to decision fatigue. Yet focusing on quality content is easier said than done. It’s a matter of aligning the right incentives and resources to combat engrained structural forces that prioritize the sort of “predictable clicks” Kaminska talks about.  

With that said, Tamar Charney, consulting senior supervising producer for NPR’s Throughline, thinks that in a lot of ways, we’re getting there. “Daily news podcasts and newsletters are a growing way people are getting their news. Most daily news podcasts are relatively short, meaning that in 10, 20, or perhaps 30 minutes you can walk away feeling like you are pretty well informed. Newsletters also give you that sense of ‘Okay, I’m caught up,’ so you can turn your attention to something else.”

  • Community engagement is key

“If local newsrooms are going to rank alongside direct service providers seeking support from the same philanthropic people and institutions, newsrooms will have to show that they are listening beyond their existing audience and taking steps to strengthen the community, not just report on it,” writes Ariel Zirulnick, senior editor for community engagement at Southern California Public Radio.

As an example, she cites her team’s work “hosting listening sessions and researching the information needs of Angelenos underserved by journalism.” Collaboration here is key – not only between a newsroom’s audience and engagement teams, but with local, civic and academic organizations.

Other Nieman Lab contributors echo these sentiments, whether they’re discussing going beyond data and into local communities, the importance of face-to-face reporting, or collective impact models that can strengthen and redefine local news.

How Businesses Can Help

If there’s one takeaway from all this, it’s that no one journalist, editor or media organization can beat back the tide of fake news alone. In fact, according to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, it’s businesses – and, to a lesser degree, NGOs – that should help provide societal stability in an era when media and government are viewed as increasingly divisive.

For instance, business’ trust score is 61, government’s is 52, and media’s is 50. More people trust their own employer than their government or news sources, and the majority of respondents now want business leaders to speak up about societal issues.

At Greentarget, we believe that business leaders who see the need to speak up should do so by developing effective positions of authority. That means speaking on timely, relevant issues that executives are experts in; crafting distinct points-of-view and/or tangible guidance that provides utility; participating intelligently in ongoing media conversations; and supporting or supplementing trusted news outlets, journalists and editors with expert commentary and insights.

Their role is to supplement and support traditional journalism and add expertise to important discussions – bolstering journalists’ efforts, when appropriate. And when they do participate, they shouldn’t just follow consensus or add to the noise. This is what Kaminska thinks is missing in today’s media landscape: “…contrarian quality reads that might be slower to come to market but are much harder to discredit over time because they have been properly researched, considered, and tested.”

There may be no one-size-fits-all solution to fake news, which is why now is not the time to be short-sighted or, worse, cynical. More than ever, we all have a responsibility to play a part in providing and supporting credible, quality news people can trust.

by

Too many of today’s aspiring thought leaders are more concerned with simply being part of the conversation than adding to it in a meaningful way.

There can be a lot of reasons for this. Often it’s a feeling that they have to keep pace with competitors – the marketing equivalent of FOMO – even if they don’t have anything new to say. Other times, thought leaders have a lot to say, but are afraid their perspective could offend someone, somewhere, and cost them business.

It’s a problem because in almost every case it strips the would-be thought leadership of a point of view – which we believe is essential for establishing authority.

Here’s what aspiring authorities need to know.

Defining POV in the professional services context

The clearest and most succinct definition of point of view that I’ve ever come across is this: a point of view is a statement that others might disagree with.

Consider that a point of view is (by definition) not a statement of fact. Like any good piece of writing, or any good dinner guest, a solid POV should incite further conversation rather than close it off by simply repeating what’s already been said, stating the obvious or saying something patently false or outrageous. A point of view, like those thesis statements we learned about in middle school, suggests a well-constructed argument – and the best arguments are typically those that persuade, excite, or push the conversation forward using hard facts, engaging writing and illustrative examples.

Marketers at professional services firms might say, “Well yes, this is all well and good in theory, but the consensus-driven partnership structure of my organization makes it difficult to actually achieve.” And of course they’re right. It’s rare to find a lawyer or consultant who really wants to go out on a limb and risk offending their partners, clients or potential clients. The rub is that this is often what makes the best point of view – just look at any newspaper’s most read op-ed pieces.

And yet there is a middle ground here. Just because someone might disagree with a point of view doesn’t mean it has to be controversial or combative. For instance, it might simply be, “You’d do it this way? Interesting. Here’s why I think you should do it this way instead…”

Alternatively, sometimes a compelling, subjective point of view shines through the voice and distinct personality of the writer. Most movie critics, for instance, fawned over Moonlight (see: a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes). But the lack of dissension doesn’t render each critic’s review moot. That’s because good critics express that same opinion in new and unique ways – through their individual experiences, interesting historical and industry context, their personal prose style – that set each review apart and opens up more space for conversation and disagreement.

Similarly, a consultant could agree that we need more focus on environmental, social and governance considerations at the board level (at this point, who doesn’t?). But they may also disagree on the best ways to go about it – or simply have different priorities. They may view it through the lens of, say, the consultant’s stint in South Africa during apartheid, or in advising directors who were early ESG adopters. Nobody needs to hear another call to adopt ESG. But drawing on unique experiences could help make the case for ESG in a way that nobody else has.

All of which brings me to another definition, one perhaps more palatable to professional services firms: a point of view is a statement that is made more compelling by virtue of the author’s unique perspective.

How to find your professional services firm’s POV in 4 steps

Crafting a quality POV takes work. Namely – and this is what most would-be thought leaders elide – what you want to say is only one part of the puzzle. You also need to understand what’s already been said about the topic and what your audience wants to hear about the topic. Only then can you figure out what you (and ideally only you!) can bring to the table.

Ask yourself, or the would-be thought leader you’re working with, these four questions to get there:

1) Can you frame the topic as a “how” or “why” question?

This question should articulate a pain point of a particular audience, e.g., “How should corporate leaders maintain their culture when everyone’s working from home?”

Forcing yourself to frame your topic this way not only directs your content towards an audience need, but does so in a way which pushes past the simple “what” (i.e., the information anyone could find on Wikipedia or a news site) and into the more meaty terrain of “why” or “how.”

2) What has been – and is being – said about the topic you want to write about?

Think of this as an audit of the current conversation. If your objective is to add to that conversation meaningfully, you have to know what’s been said so that you don’t merely repeat what everyone already knows.

Remember, this is the first step in an iterative process. It’s possible that you’ll start out thinking you have a unique POV, only to find three people have already said the same thing. So keep digging. Sometimes the solution is to think smaller and find a narrower, more specific angle (or audience); in other words, to do more with less rather than less with more. Other times, you might find an existing POV that you disagree with, which can act as a springboard for your own (“Numerous folks have said X…but I believe that Y is the right answer…”). And other times the solution will come from how you, specifically, can address the issue.

This step is where research (and a partner like Greentarget…hint, hint) can play an important role, be it by assessing media narratives, analyzing keyword search patterns or surveying audiences to get a more accurate picture of their views and concerns.

3) What does your desired audience need and/or want to hear about this topic?

Put yourself in your audience’s shoes: What’s keeping them up at night when it comes to this issue? What don’t they know that they should be prepared for? How can you illustrate this in a way that will grab their attention (i.e. with specific examples, anecdotes, statistics, etc.)? And, perhaps most importantly, why do they need to know this right now?

In our research, we’ve found that when it comes to thought leadership content, utility is what attracts C-suite executives to content more than any other attribute. Utility disrupts the professional services sales cycle by answering the question “what do I need to do to navigate or address this issue today?” Ideally, it provides the answer before the audience has asked it. It empowers audiences to act by tipping the scales from passive consumer to engaged prospect. With utility, authorities will be heeded. Without utility, it’s all just talk. More talk means more noise.

4) Why should you be the one to write this?

Once you’ve assessed the current conversation and your audience’s needs, you’ll be in a good position to figure out what you can uniquely add to the conversation. Here the (admittedly aspirational) test for good thought leadership might be: Could someone else have written his?

Of course, it’s unrealistic to think that you are, say, the only accountant that can dish insights around the complexities of PPP loan forgiveness. But that’s where your personal voice and experience – attributes that no one else has – comes in. This can be professionally related, sure, but it can also be more personal: Can you connect this to something you’ve experienced? Some other industry or news trend you’re following? A hobby of yours? A client you’ve assisted in the past?

At the end of all this, hopefully you’ll have something that doesn’t just add to the noise – but contributes to a smarter conversation.

by

Most GCs don’t find client alerts useful. Making them better may be easier than you think.

In a recent survey of GCs, we found that their preferred medium for Covid-19-related content was email – by a long shot – but only 35% found email content to be useful.

In other words, the majority of professional services firms’ client alerts, at least on Covid-related topics, aren’t up to snuff.

The good news is that in most cases, it’s not the information itself that’s letting recipients down. What’s missing, rather, is a sense of empathy for the stressed-out, inundated reader. Too often those readers get an email with a subject line that tells them nothing, containing massive blocks of jargon-filled text, loaded with background information they already know. There may be valuable insights hiding in there, but who has the time to hunt them down?

Firms can do better – with just a few tweaks. Here’s how.  

1). Subject lines: just tell us what we’re going to learn. Too many subject lines tell us the subject – “New EEOC guidelines” – without any hint of what the firm has to say about them. That’s only half the battle. A good subject line describes, in a few words, the subject of the alert (e.g., new EEOC guidelines) and what the reader will get out of reading it. For instance: “New EEOC guidelines, explained” ; “New EEOC guidelines – 3 things employers need to know”; or “FAQ: New EEOC guidelines”.

2). Cut to the chase. Everyone knows Covid-19 is unprecedented. Yet alert after alert opens with a preamble reminding us of the fact. No need. You’re talking to informed professionals. Lead with a sentence telling the reader why they need to pay attention (i.e., what’s at stake) then quickly describe what you’re going to offer.  

3). Understand what service your content is providing. The effective client alerts we read tend to include one or both of the following: 1) A clear, concise summary of a new legal development; or 2) Considerations, action-items, and/or insights around a certain topic. What’s key is to recognize which kind you’re writing and develop it with that in mind.

A mere summary – highlighting the key points of a complex law – might be useful if it’s easier to read than the law or regulation itself, and if it comes out before news organizations have covered it in-depth. Likewise, if you’re offering actionable insights, don’t wait until the final third to get them; hyperlink to the context and put your insights in clear, succinct bullet points.

4). Use descriptive subheads, short paragraphs, bullet points and even visuals if you can. Again, just think about how you read emails. You’re basically skimming for what might be useful, right? And what makes skimming easier? Subheads that tell you what’s in the section to follow; bullet points that have ample space between them and aren’t heavy on text; and short, concise paragraphs that aren’t filled with long names of laws/regulatory bodies that everyone knows by acronym anyway.

5). Consider employing a few reliable stock formats. I like knowing, when I get my New York Times morning briefing, that it’s going to follow a familiar format: a few summed-up stories, a recipe and little joke towards the end, and so on. I like, too, that it comes at pretty much the same time every morning. In short, I appreciate it because it tells me, via its format and style, what, where, and when I will find useful/relevant information.

Client alerts may not be so simple – it may not be possible to reliably send them out at the same time. But you can train readers on what to expect when they open one up. It will endear you to them and, as a bonus, it’ll make alerts easier to write.

Some stock formats that we’d suggest:

  • FAQs – Just remember that it’s better to have more questions (and shorter answers) than multi-paragraph answers to a single broad question.
  • Checklist – Providing a checklist of actions/factors to consider on a specific topic – that a reader could print out and keep on their desk – is the ultimate utility. Just keep it to one page.
  • Summary + Insight – In other words, two short sections: 1) What you need to know (i.e., brief summary of issue with hyperlink, and why it’s important – but again, keep it to a minimum); and 2) What to do about it (i.e., professional guidance). Clearly delineate them with the same subheads every time.
  • Panel – Why not just grab direct quotes from your subject-matter experts – (ideally) ones that sound like the way they actually speak – and toss it into a Q&A format? The alert could start with a quick summary of what’s at stake, then collect 3-5 paragraph-long quotes from different sources sharing their perspective/guidance on the topics. It’s a good way to make alerts engaging, personable and easier to write, while showcasing distinctive voices and the breadth of the firm’s intellect.

If for some reason none of those work, just remember your audience: a busy, intelligent, informed individual who doesn’t owe you any of their time and doesn’t need or want to be pandered to.

And remember that now more than ever, people do want to hear from subject-matter authorities. It’s your job (and ours) to deliver that message effectively.

Return to COVID-19 Resources for Communicators

Close
Close